British Journal of Education

Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014

Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
EFFECTS OF PIAGETIAN FORMAL OPERATIONS ON MATHEMATICS
PERFORMANCE OF SENIOR SECONDARY STUDENTS IN KADUNA STATE,
NIGERIA

Dr. Mamman MUSA and Ibrahim Haruna USMAN

Department Of Science Education, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria-Nigeria

ABSTRACT: Effect of formal operation abilities on mathematics performance of Senior

Secondary Students (SSS) in Kaduna State, Nigeria was investigated. The population of the
study was all the SSS III students in the state. Their number was 62,565. A sample of 400
students of equal numbers of males and females was drawn, from those offering arts and
science subjects. Two paper and pencil tests were developed and used to generate data for
analysis, namely, Formal Operations Test (FOT) and Mathematics Performance Test
(MPT).The FOT was to assess students’ level of formal operations while the MPT was
developed to test their performance in mathematics. The results of the study showed that
mathematics performance was low. Second, the numbers of students who always use and those
who never use formal operations abilities were about equal. Third, results in the FOT and MPT
were significant and positively correlated. Fourth, there was significant difference between the
MPT scores of those students who always use and those who never use the abilities in favour
of the former. Implications deduced were that this study confirmed that not all SS students use
the abilities always and some never use them. Results of the analysis also indicated that formal
operations significantly affect students’ performance in mathematics. Those who always use
the abilities performed better than those who never use them. This indicated that the widely
experienced poor performance in mathematics, especially among senior secondary students,
is partly as a result of students not always using formal operations abilities. Lastly, findings
indicated that knowledge of students’ level of formal operations can be used to understand,
predict and improve their performance in mathematics. It was recommended that teachers of
mathematics should endeavour to diagnose and identify their students’ level of formal
operations so that they help raise those students who sometimes use and those who never use
the abilities to be using them always. It was also recommended that governments should be
convening and sponsoring workshops that will evolve programs for accelerating students’
cognitive development for use by teachers in normal mathematics lessons.

ABSTRCT: Piagetian, Mathematics Performance, Senior Secondary Students, Kaduna,

Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Mathematics is one of the most important school subjects. This is because of the fact that
mathematics finds applications in all school subjects and in the everyday lives of individuals.

62
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
It is one of the few subjects that are compulsory for all students from nursery to secondary
school. Also, admission to read any science or related courses in Nigerian tertiary institutions
is based on a requirement of a pass at credit level in O/level mathematics, among others.
Despite this importance, Azuka (2000), Ibrahim (2003) and Kurumeh & Iji (2009) reported
that performance in it has been constantly very poor over the years. Ibrahim (2003) reported
that the percentage of Nigerian students who passed mathematics at credit level in West African
Examinations Council for Senior Secondary Certificate (W.A.E.C/S.S.C.E) for the years 1981
to 1991 was averagely 14.4. Azuka (2000) also reported that students who passed mathematics
at credit level in WAEC/SSCE for the years 1994 to 1996, in this country, was averagely 14.2.
Again, Kurumeh & Iji (2009) reported that those who passed the subject at credit level in the
same examinations for the year 2000 to 2006, in this country, was 24.4. This trend is really
lamentable and pathetic, for it showed that on the whole, in the about twenty years in question,
averagely only 4% of the students who sat for W.A.E.C examinations in this country were
eligible for admission into the nation’s tertiary institutions to study mathematics and physical
and applied sciences. These are the courses every nation needs to advance technologically.

Several things could be said to be responsible for the present state of affairs in mathematics
education. Reasons ranging from the nature of the subject itself, the students’ attitudes,
mathematics teachers and their methods and approaches in teaching the subject have been
fingered as responsible (Azuka, 2000; Ezeugo & Agwagah, 2000; Ibe-Enwo, 2003; Ibrahim,
2003; Adekoya, 2009; Etukudo, 2009; Kurumeh & Iji, 2009 and Oyetunde & Emunefe, 2009).
This study looked into whether a consideration of the patterns of thinking and reasoning
common to Senior Secondary students, as proposed in Piaget’s (1958) theory and stages of
cognitive development, could help improve students’ mathematics performance.

Background to the Study

No doubt, Jean Piaget is the father of cognitive psychology. He pioneered the school of
cognitive psychology in his attempt to understand and explain human intellectual development.
However, cognitive psychologists were not totally in agreement in their quest. Bee (1989)
posited that the attempt to explain cognitive development turned out three different approaches
of intelligence. The first is the individual differences approach that is based on the fact every
individual differ in intellectual skills compared to others. Proponents of this approach ask how
well a person does intellectual tasks compared to others. The second is the cognitive structure
approach that is based, instead of on individual differences, on the patterns of reasoning and
thinking common to individuals. Proponents of this approach emphasize that cognitive
development is a result of the development of cognitive structures (schemata) which are,
according to Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958), basic units of knowledge used to organize past
experiences and serve as a basis for understanding new ones. They emphasize understanding
the type of structure an individual uses in performing tasks and how these structures change
with age. The third is information processing approach. Proponents of this approach based their
work on understanding the basic processes that make up all intellectual activity. They
emphasize understanding the basic processes an individual uses when faced with tasks, how
the processes change with age and how individuals differ in their speed and skill in using them.

The cognitive structure approach, pioneered by Piaget, forms the spring board for this study.
To him, cognitive development in humans could best be understood and explained not through
a consideration of individual differences but through understanding the patterns of thinking
common to them. This way, he discovered that children of similar ages have similar thinking
and reasoning patterns and that they use these similar abilities when dealing with intellectual

63
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
tasks. As a result of this discovery Piaget (1958) proposed his bold theory and stages of
cognitive development.

Piaget, in his theory, proposed that every normal individual is born with built-in cognitive
structures (schemata) that the individual use to interact with and explore the environment. This
structure changes in unique and predictable patterns as the individual gains experience and
learns new knowledge in the process of growing up. The change that occurs, in the cognitive
structures, is generally similar with individuals of the same age group. From the theory of
cognitive development, Piaget (1958) further proposed that individuals, from birth to
adolescence, undergo cognitive transition through four stages. According to him, these stages
are successively linked to each other, but are qualitatively different. At each stage children
spontaneously acquire certain cognitive abilities that are peculiar to only children of that age
group. For example every normal 3 to 5 year old will prefer that you give him five one naira
notes instead of one five naira note. This is because children of this age group cannot conserve
quantities and volumes. But, he observed that abilities acquired in one stage form the basis for
transition to a higher succeeding stage.

Piaget cautioned that although children of any stage possess cognitive abilities and modes of
thinking that are characteristic only to those children of that age group, the stages are such that
all normal children pass through them in exactly the same order, without skipping. But the ages
at which children progress through the stages may vary and the rate at which individual children
pass through each stage may also differ. These inconsistencies, Piaget attributed to an
individual’s environmental setting, educational experiences, societal culture and natural ability.
This implies that the abilities and stage acquired by individuals of the same age group may
differ from society to society. The stages are the sensorimotor (from birth to 2years), the pre-
operations (from 2 to 7 years), concrete operations (7 to 11 years) and formal operations (11 to
15 years).

The formal operations stage is the highest and last attained by individuals in the process of
acquiring cognitive abilities that enables them to deal with their environment. Sweetland (2007)
explained that attaining formal operations abilities means that for the first time in the
adolescent’s life he has the mental capacity to think as well as adults and has the ability to solve
all types of problems. This implies that a formal operations individual is equipped to understand
all the mathematics he is taught in the senior secondary school and is capable of solving all
problems therein. Sweetland further explained that abilities acquired at the formal operations
stage include combinations, proportionality, probability, hypothesis, correlation,
metacognition, deductive logic, formal reasoning and isolation and controlling of variables.
Incidentally, these abilities are mathematical in nature. All of them can be found as
mathematics topics in the senior secondary syllabus or are used in solving mathematical
problems. Piaget (1958) cautioned that there is what he called horizontal decalage at the formal
operations stage. What this means is that out of those who have acquired the formal operations
abilities; not all use them all the time and some never use them.

This study investigated whether the similarity between the structures of formal operations
abilities and that of mathematics imply that the development and use of the formal operations
abilities affect senior secondary students’ performance in mathematics. Also, the study sought
to find out whether a consideration of the thinking and reasoning abilities common to SS
students, instead of their individual differences, will help improve their mathematics
performance. It was hypothesized that SS students’ performance in mathematics correlated

64
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
with their level of formal operations and that SS students who always use the formal operations
abilities performed better, in mathematics, than those who never use the abilities.

Two paper- and - pencil tests were developed and used to generate data in this study. The
Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) was used to measure SS students’ mathematics
performance. The Formal Operations Test (FOT) was used to measure SS students’ level of
formal operations. Three similar studies created a vacuum that the present study has filled.
Roberge & Flexer (1983) carried out a similar study on primary six and J.S1 and 2 students.
Lawson, (1982) also carried out a similar study on J.S 3 students and Mwamwenda (1993)
carried out same study on university first year students. The findings of the three sets of
researches showed that students’ level of formal operations significantly affect their
mathematics performance.

METHOD

The population for this study was all the SS 3 students in Kaduna State. Their figure was
62,565, spread over 695 schools in the state. A sample of 400 students was used in the study.
This figure was made up of 200 males and 200 females, drawn equally from those offering arts
and science. The determination of the sample size of 200 for this study was informed by the
suggestion advanced by McClave and Dietrich (1985). Ex post-facto research design was
adopted in which two paper - and - pencil tests were used to generate data for the study. FOT
and MPT were the tests used as instruments of data collection.

FOT
Roberge & Flexer (1983) in a similar study developed and used the Formal Operations
Reasoning Test (FORT, 1983) to measure the level of formal operations of students. The FORT
covered only three abilities of combinations, proportionality and deductive logic, while FOT
was developed and used in this study to measure the same thing as the FORT but it covered
five formal operations abilities of combinations, proportionality, deductive logic, probability
and formal reasoning. The FOT contained 50 items made up of 10 items on each of the five
abilities. Each of the items was scored out of 2 marks and the whole test out of 100 marks.
Students’ results on the test were used in determining their level of formal operations and as
data for analysis.

Eight university lecturers, from the rank of lecturer II and above, drawn from the areas of
mathematics, mathematics education and psychology validated the FOT. A pilot study was
conducted in which the split-half method was used to obtain a linear correlation coefficient of
+0.97 and a reliability coefficient of +0.99 at p<0.05, using the Spearman – Brown formula.
This established that the FOT actually measure what it was intended for and is highly
consistent. Students’ results on the FOT were used to classify them into three levels:
A = {those who always use formal operations abilities},
B = {those who sometimes use formal operations abilities} and
C = {those who never use formal operations abilities}.
The highest level was considered to be A, followed by B, then C. The mean score on the FOT
( x ) and the standard error of the mean on the FOT () was used to define the three
classifications of the use of the formal operations abilities.

A  x : x  x   ;B   x : x.    x  x   ; C = {x: x< x    and   s / n .

65
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
In this research, only those students whose use of formal operations abilities was clear cut were
considered. The results of those who sometimes use the abilities were not considered in the
analysis.

MPT
Algebra, geometry, trigonometry, number and numeration and everyday statistics are integral
parts of modern mathematics. They also form the greater part of the Nigerian SS mathematics
syllabus. The MPT was developed on these five major areas of SS mathematics, with one item
from each. The items were scored out of 20 marks and the whole MPT out of 100. This test
was used to measure SS students’ mathematics performance. Students’ results in this test were
used as data in the analysis. Out of the eight lecturers that validated the FOT, six of them also
validated the MPT. These were the ones drawn from the areas of mathematics and mathematics
education. Two parallel tests of the MPT were used in a pilot study. Results showed a linear
correlation coefficient of +0.76 and a reliability coefficient of +0.86 at p<0.05, using the
Spearman - Brown formula for reliability coefficient. This established that the test items
measured what they were intended and that the test was highly consistent.

FOT Results
Students’ results on the FOT showed that x = 39.03, s = 22.71 and   1.14. According to the

defined levels of formal operations, namely A, B and C.


A  x : x  x +   x : x  39.03  1.14 


B  x: x -   x  x+  


C  x:x  x -    x : x  39.03  1.14 

Thus, results on the FOT showed that number of students in level A, which was defined as
those whose FOT score was more than 40 marks, was 200 or 50%.The next was level B, defined
to be those whose FOT score was between 38 and 40 marks, their number was 18 or 4.5%.
Lastly, level C, defined to be those whose FOT score was less than 38 marks, their number was
182 or 45.5% (Table 1).

66
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
Table 1:Distribution of FOT results with the three levels of formal operations

Marks No. of Students Cumulative Level of formal No. in level of formal

frequency operations operations
0–9 43 43
10 – 19 72 115
20 – 29 28 143
30 – 37 39 182 C :never use 182 (45.5%)
38 – 40 18 200 B :sometimes use 18 (4.5%)
41 – 49 47 247
50 – 59 49 296
60 – 69 72 368
70 – 79 24 392
80 – 89 8 400
90 – 100 0 400 A :always use 200 (50%)

MPT Results
Students’ results on the MPT showed that x = 24.02 and s = 13.28. For level A, those
students who always use formal operations abilities, x = 33.84 and s = 16.39. For level C,
those who never use formal operations abilities, x = 11.72 and s = 10.16.
The PPMC and t-test statistics were used to test the two hypotheses in this study, respectively.
H01:There is no significant relationship between the FOT and MPT scores.

Table 2: Summary of PPMC for FOT and MPT scores.

variables n x s Df rcal rcrit p-value decision

FOT 400 39.03 22.71

798 0.96 0.195 0.00 Significant
MPT 400 24.02 13.28

The hypothesis was tested using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation technique. An r-
value of +0.96 was found. The value was found to be significant at 0.05 level with df = 798.
Hence, H01 was rejected in favour of its alternative.
H02: The mathematics performance of SS students who always use and those who never use
formal operations abilities are not significantly different.

Table 3:Summary of t-test analysis for level of formal operations abilities on SS students’
MPT scores.
variables n x s df tcal tcrit p-value decision

always use 200 33.84 6.39

380 32.27 1.97 0.00 Significant
never use 182 11.72 10.16

The t-test for independent samples was used. From analysis, the t-value (tcal = 32.27) indicated
significant difference and thus, H02 was rejected in favour of its alternative.

DISCUSSION

The results of students on the FOT and MPT have revealed a number of things. Students’
performance was poorer in MPT than in FOT. Also, results of students in the FOT have shown
67
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
that, among SS students, no particular level of formal operations dominates, between those
who always use and those who never use formal operations abilities. This has confirmed
Piaget’s (1958) assertion that not all students who have developed the abilities use them always.
Results of PPMC analysis on students’ FOT and MPT scores indicated a high positive linear
correlation coefficient between the two tests; implying that SS students’ FOT scores can be
used to predict their mathematics performance and students’ mathematics performance can be
used to identify their level of formal operations. In the same vein, results of the t-test analysis
showed significant difference between the MPT scores of those students who always use and
those who never use formal operations abilities, which indicated that SS students who always
use the abilities performed better in mathematics than those who never use them. It follows,
therefore, that the development and use of formal operations abilities affect SS students’
mathematics performance. This means that the level of students’ formal operations affect their
performance in mathematics. This implies that coaching students to always use the abilities
will help improve their performance in mathematics. Finally, this study has brought to light the
importance of using the thinking and reasoning patterns common to students instead of their
individual differences to understand, predict and improve their performance in mathematics.

Recommendations
The findings of this research have brought to light the importance of Piaget’s theory and stages
of cognitive development to mathematics education, generally, and to mathematics
performance in the Senior Secondary, in particular. In this light, therefore, the following
recommendations were made:

1. Mathematics teachers should endeavour to diagnose and identify, in their classes, students’
level of formal operations so that they can use their lessons to train them to always use the
abilities.
2. Government should be organizing and sponsoring workshops on the production of programs
for accelerating the cognitive development of students through mathematics education.

REFERENCES

Adekoya S.O.(2009). Improving Senior Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum for the
attainment of MDG’s. Conference Proceedings of the Mathematical Association of
Nigeria. 269-277.
Azuka,B.F.(2000).Mathematics in Technological Development: Focus on the Next Millenium
– Implications for Secondary Education. Journal of the Mathematics Association of
Nigeria. 25(1), 24-83
Bee, H.(1989). The Developing Child (5th ed.). New York. Harper & Row.
Etukudo,U.E.(2009). Revolutionising Mathematics Curricula for Attainment of Millenium
Development Goals. Proceedings of the Mathematical Association of Nigeria
Conference. 269-277. Ibadan.
Ezeugo,N.C.& Agwagah,U.N.V(2000).Effect of Concept Mapping on Students’ Achievement
in Algebra: Implications for Secondary Mathematics Education in the 21st Century.
The Journal of Mathematical Association of Nigeria 25(1), 1-13.
Ibe-Enwo, O. (2003). Learning and Teaching of Mathematics: Problems and Prospects.
Nigerian Journal of Functional Education. 2(1), 44-49.
Ibrahim, M.O. (2003). The Cognitive Difficulties of Senior Secondary School Students in
Mathematics. Nigerian Journal of Functional Educational. 2(1) 247-254.

68
 British Journal of Education
Vol.2, No.2, pp.62-69, June 2014
Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.ea-journals.org)
Inhelder,B. & Piaget,J.(1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to
Adolescence. New York, Harper & Row.
Kurumeh, M.S. & Iji, C.O.(2009).Improving Students’ Achievement in Solving Algebraic Word
Problems using Aesthetic Value Approach. The Journal of Mathematical Association
of Nigeria. 34(1), 37-45.
Lawson, A.E.(1982).Formal Reasoning Achievement and Intelligence: An Issue of Importance.
In Roberge, J.J. & Flexer, B.K. (1983). Cognitive Style, Operativity and Mathematics
Achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 14(5), 344-353.
McClave, J.T. and Dietrich F.H. (1985): Statistics (3rd Ed). San Francisco: Dellen Publishing
Company.
Mwamwenda,T.S.(1993). Formal Operations and Academic Achievement. www.JSTOR
(2007).
Oyetunde,B.S.&Emunefe, J.O. (2009).On the Teaching of Mathematics to the Students with
special needs to attain the MDG’s. Conference Proceedings of the Mathematical
Association of Nigeria. 312-319.
Roberge,J.J.&Flexer,B.K.(1983).Cognitive Style, Operativity and Mathematics Achievement.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 14(5), 344-379.
Sweetland,R.(2007).Formal Operations and the Middle School.
http://www.huntel.net/sweetland/

69